ANANTHASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in the appeal who are the petitioners in the original petition are three retired District Judges. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 could not see the final fate of these litigations since they died pending the appeal. The legal representatives of appellants No. 2 and 3 have been impleaded. The appellants retired from service on superannuation on 30.6.83, 30.10.83 and 31.8.85 respectively. They had 7 years, 11 years and 9 years experience respectively at the Bar before they were appointed as Munsiffs. Originally the maximum years of qualifying service required for full pension was 25 years. Later the rules were amended making it obligatory to have 30 years qualifying service in order to become eligible for full pension. There is provision in the Kerala Service Rules for treating the experience at the Bar for the purpose of computing the period of qualifying service. R.25(a) in Chap.3 Part.3 of the Kerala Service Rules as it stood on the date of retirement of the appellants read as follows:

(2.) The Fifth Kerala Pay Commission recommended that the Bar service for superannuation pension might be raised to 10 years. Accordingly, R.25(a) of Chap.3 Part.3 K. S. R. was amended by incorporating the above recommendation of the Pay Commission. But the above amendment was given effect to only from 1.4.90. The appellants filed representations to re-fix their pension taking into account the amended provision referred to above. The above representations were rejected by Exts. P3, P5 and P7 orders respectively. The original petition was filed challenging the above orders and praying for a declaration that the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions with regard to the addition of 10 years Bar service in computing pension. The original petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge and hence the appeal.

(3.) Sri. N. Sukumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants heavily relied on the ruling reported in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ). On the basis of the above ruling it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the pensioners formed a class by themselves and that they are not to be treated differently on the basis of different dates of retirement. Therefore, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that the appellants, even though retired in 1983 and in 1985 were entitled to the benefits of the amended rules which came into effect with effect from 1.4.90. It was further contended that the date 1.4.1990 fixed by the respondents was unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory.